General Discussion

Or maybe I'm just paying more attention now.

My opinion on the matter (based on what I know, which is limited)
is that it is a reasonable response to a difficult situation. The risks
of inaction are pretty clear, and the commitment (and public
pressure) to keep actions limited is there - assuming you believe it.
If you don't, that's a different matter.

Nobody wants a war, and I can understand reticence to make even
minor moves after our habitual forays into the region, but I can't
really understand doing nothing.There are times for action.
I mean, (scale aside) what if we had said "You know, we were just
in Europe for WWI, maybe we should stay out of WWII." I suppose
Japan didn't give us much of a choice, but as I understand it, prior
to PH, we were sitting on inaction.

As you've said several times I've seen, what we've done in the past
shouldn't prevent us from doing good in the future. If people view it
as a way for the US to somehow gain back status or humanitarian
image, well, I don't think they are looking at it with a humanitarian
eye. You don't do right to gain praise or redeem past actions, you
do right because it's right.

Based on what I know, it seems like a case and a time to do right.